Recommended Posts

I gave that answer. Acoustic waves have a period, like any sort of wave. The periods of harmonic sounds have a common multiplicative factor N: the peaks and valleys of the wave periods intersect every N periods. This is why they sound the way they do when they are played together. Without this very real intersection of wave periods, the sounds would not sound harmonious.

Yes, yes, I'm very well aware of the acoustic facts. (And to be perfectly precise, the peaks and valleys don't have to intersect, or be aligned rather, for the human ear is largely insensitive to phase differences.) The question is, why do you gain pleasure from periodic sounds as opposed to nonperiodic ones? The human ear is equally able to analyze periodic and nonperiodic sounds, but only (certain) periodic sounds are pleasurable. (Moreover, the auditory system "fills in" fundamental frequencies when only the lowest overtones are heard. Conversely, noise is pretty much just that--noise. The auditory system can analyze noise quite well--it's essential in discriminating among different consonants, for example--but there's no pleasurable sensation deriving from it.) The auditory system is biased towards the perception of periodic sounds. That is what has a physiological basis, in the same way that certain smells are pleasant and others are not, and just as certain combinations of colors or shapes are pleasurable as such.

It is thus not a purely psychological selection...

Did you mean to write "physiological" there? In any case, I'm not saying it's purely physiological, but instead that it has a physiological basis.

...and thus a tabula rasa being in touch with reality cannot be trained to find pleasure in noise or atonality.

That doesn't follow. If there were no auditory bias towards periodic sounds, then it's doubtful that either periodic or non-periodic sounds would be distinctly more pleasant. The thing is that tabula rasa refers to the conceptual content of man's mind; it says nothing per se about the perceptual faculties on which concepts are based. Certain harmonies are pleasant, but that's only the most basic fact about music, which is largely conceptual (such things as themes are conceptual units, for example, as are such qualities as the key of a musical passage). Noise (apart from percussion, which serves a largely rhythmic function) is automatically excluded from music because there's no pleasurable sensation deriving from it; atonality on the other hand is essentially conceptual. Similarly, there is probably a physiological basis to certain types of esthetic judgments summed up as "harmonious arrangement."

Only a deranged, physchologically distraught malfeasant could fool their subconscious into something like that (not that it hasn't been done, the current state of popular music is proof enough).

"Physchologically"? I assume you mean "psychologically."

Actually, there are some atonal pieces I like, such as Berg's Violin Concerto; you'd do well in future not to psychologize about me. (Remember that atonality is an entirely different matter than noise. Serial music uses the same notes as tonal music, it simply uses them in such a way as to eliminate any overall tonal center.)

Actually I have hinted at it, but really I don't need to. The fact is that the purpose of valuation is to add value to ones life, and that the subject of valuation in the case of human beings are existents which do possess character.

And if a person has a pleasing aspect, that is of some small value by that very fact; but any personal relationship requires greater values. That is different from the implications of your postings earlier in the thread, which is that a pleasing aspect is of no value at all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As a further illustration, consider what I said earlier about hair color preference being a psychological error. What is more important than hair color is hair style, which is a volitional choice made by the wearer, and is an indicator of the person's character.

"Psychological error"? Not necessarily. Hair color can clash with or match eye color and skin color; that's a question again of the harmonious arrangement of the face.

To me, there is nothing sexier than a woman with long, feminine hair, proportionate, healthy body and face, neat, feminine clothing, and the expression of concentration on her face as she works.

And I like the looks of women with very short hair, provided they have the long well-sculpted necks that such styles set off well. How, pray tell, is this difference a sign of evasion or other immorality on my part, or hers? If it's not, why not?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tom Man, I really think you're misguided on this one. If beauty is merely a projection of practical value, then I would find a twenty dollar bill to be more beautiful than a sunset. Beauty in itself is a value. PHYSICAL beauty. Looking at something beautiful gives you pleasure. And it is ridiculous to pretend that the way someone looks is defined by their character. The way you look, other than things like weight, hairstyle and hygiene is as much beyond your control as your ethnicity is, and it is similar to racism to say that you can judge a person's character by merely looking at them. The fact is, if I did what you suggested and thought of all the character values that I seek in a woman and then pictured what she would look like, my estimate of her appearance is based on nothing more than arbitrary imaginations, and the real woman with that character that I seek could turn out to look any way.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This is a really strange thread. Physical attractiveness has a lot to do with environment and the chemical/physical makeup of the human body. Sight, Smell, Sound, are all a part of reality and have to be takeninto account. If someone is physically georgeous and has shares all your values but smells awful to you the smell has a huge part to do with physical atrractiveness. Your brain can't tell your nose that smell is not bad any more than water is not wet. If it smells bad to you then it smells bad.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Their mind, personality and some attractive physical features. A guy doesn't have to look like a movie star or anything to be good looking. He can have nice eyes or a cute smile and that would be enough. As long as they take decent care of their hygiene or health. As in- they are not 500 pounds or do drugs. Physical attraction is key but I also put as much emphasis on their mind and personality. I like intellectual guys who can hold a conversation. I like funny, interesting guys who can discuss anything.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why would you evaluate a feature of a human being simply to valuate it for its "harmony" (to something nebulous and fuzzy, apparently) and for no other purpose? What value does this add to your life? How does it make you a happier man?

A beautiful woman as such is of the same value as a flower or sunset. You ask what value it adds to a life. Beauty is the value.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think what you are offering us is a false alternative: either we base all our beauty-judgements of humans on character, or we engage in a mind-body dichotomy. Clearly it is neither.

A person is a whole unit sum of mind and body. A person's mind may be beautiful but that person's body may not be, and vice versa. In either case, only the mind or body is beautiful but not the other. However, for a person to be beautiful, both mind and body must be beautiful. We should make judgements of that person's mind and body, not as seperate entities, but as necessary conjugates. I think that is something upon which we can all agree.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

i don't know if anyone has watched 'the secret' or read about the law of attraction? it proposes that the thoughts one thinks manifests into reality.. and this applies to relationships as well. so if you think about being with a person positively and long enough, it'll happen. i don't think i'm explaining it properly but it's quite an interesting notion. there's another concept about visualisation too that helps relationships. more on this here.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

it proposes that the thoughts one thinks manifests into reality.. and this applies to relationships as well. so if you think about being with a person positively and long enough, it'll happen.

..."Your thoughts alone are impotent to alter the course of a single speck of dust in the entire universe"

The 'secret' is that to accomplish things you must act, not merely think. The thinking is the source of the action, and in that sense having a positive attitude is good, but thought without action is indistinguishable from non thought. Or "Any idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptable hypocracy' The 'secret' seeks to tap into the large portion of the population which would like to accomplish their goals without actually doing anything (except being 'positive') to accomplish them.

That's easy, Asians! like duh...

If I were Asian and I found out you liked me merely because I was Asian, I would be offended and disgusted by you.